|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:14:04 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: VirginiŠ)
  GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: GOP path to 270 beyond Trump-era  (Read 4857 times)
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,350
United States


« on: August 09, 2019, 06:04:46 pm »

Something will happen somewhere along the line that will hurt the dems and give gop an opening.

This board MUST ditch the insane idea that the dems will have a "lock" on the presidency. There has never been a party with a lock on the presidency. Ever.

I don't care what year it is or what the demographic makeup of the electorate is: if a dem is in power and a recession hits around election time, the dem will lose.

Do you guys not grasp that the single fastest growing preference is "unaffiliated"? People are fed up with both parties. Dems aren't exactly all sunshine and ice cream right now.

Also, their current coalition of fiscally conservative suburban whites and hardcore urban progressives will fall apart once trump leaves and is no longer common enemy.

This.

Parties change, realignments change.

The GOP will not be extinct.

We live in a two-party system, not a one-party utopia. Never have, never will--unless Americans are foolish to allow it.



I totally agree. This isnít an if issue or even a when issue. Itís a how. Thereís a spectrum for that between Trump being quickly discredited and being the next Carter, being slowly discredited like W., being able to have a minor legacy like H.W.,Clinton, him redefining the Republican Party like Obama did with the dems or him redefining redefining the system like Reagan. My guess is that he will eventually be discredited.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,350
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2019, 10:29:26 am »

Yes, you are correct, assuming you plot a straight line- but that is what I am precisely not assuming.  In other words, I think, particularly in this case, that we can't assume present demographic trends hold.  The reason is because if you look at Rust Belt cities, e.g., Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc., you'll notice that they all follow a somewhat similar pattern in terms of population decline.  It starts off relatively small (maybe around -5%), but then it passes some critical point, where a vicious circle begins, the rate of decline starts increasing (up to the -20% range), and there is this mass exodus until the city stabilizes at a much smaller size.  In some cases, the decline is still ongoing (such as Detroit, which has lost over 60% of its population from a peak at around 1.85 million).  In other cases like Cleveland and Buffalo, they have started to plateau, but only after losing about 60% of their population (which is also about how much Detroit and St Louis has lost- we will see how much further they have to go).  

Now contrast to a city like Minneapolis, which has gone down a completely different path.  It appeared as if it was heading down the same route, and lost about 30% of its population in the 70s (like many other US cities), but the difference is, for whatever reason (I'm not going to address what it could be in this post), it turned things around and is now growing at >10%, such that it will be rebound to where it was in the 70s by the next census.

So what is the difference?  Well, I'm not exactly sure (I do think that Minneapolis is a much better run city than Chicago), but whatever it is- there does appear to be a critical point where the vicious circle kicks in- maybe one major industry leaves, then some people leave, which causes property values to go down, which causes property tax revenue to go down, which causes schools to decrease in quality, which causes the city to need to increase taxes to make up a deficit, which causes more people to leave, which makes more industries want to leave to chase talent, and so on and so forth.  For any given city, there is a critical point where the floodgates will open- Minneapolis was able to turn things around before that point, Cleveland and St Louis were not.  

So what category is Chicago in?  I'm not sure, but I do think that the next 20-30 years will be very important for it and it is at high risk of passing that hypothetical "critical point" in the relatively near future.  And if it does, it's quite possible the decline will be rapid and perhaps irreversible.  At same point it looked like Chicago was going to weather this storm since it actually gained population in 2000, but then it declined again in 2010.  A better example of a large city that is stable is NYC, which had a drop in the 80s (again, like many other cities), but since then is consistently hitting a small % of growth- enough to keep it above 8 million.

I don't think the mere fact that Chicago is large will be enough to save it (although it helps).  Keep in mind that cities come and go (with the exception of NY, which has been #1 in the census every year since they started it)- many people do not realize this, but St Louis was once the 4th largest city in the US, Cleveland was in the top 10 for almost the entire 20th century, peaking at #5 (and only dropped out in the 80s), Detroit was the 4th largest city in the US for over 30 years, etc.  Heck, Buffalo was once in the top 10 (how many people reading this thread knew that?).  

It won't happen this census, but by next census, Houston is actually on track to pass Chicago as the third largest city.  Now I don't have a crystal ball, so who knows what will happen.  But right now, for reasons I'm not going to get into at the moment, I think there are indicators that Chicago is not going to stabilize in the way that NYC has, and certainly not turn things completely around like Minneapolis.  But who knows, maybe it will.  If it does, then yes- you are right, IL will stay D for the foreseeable future.  I do think the next couple decades will be critical for Chicago's future- we'll see what happens.

It has actually grown a little bit between 2010 and 2018. Who knows what that means, though. There's still a lot of construction downtown and even a new supertall is being built.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,350
United States


« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2019, 12:20:40 pm »
« Edited: August 14, 2019, 12:37:42 pm by Edgar Suit Larry »

Superb post, NC Yankee.

Anyways (to tie this back to the thread topic), I think MB's map above serves as a generally good baseline/template to work off of, and then some minor changes can be made here and there.

One big one is what ends up happening in the Deep South, which you covered in great detail above and I don't have much to add except to say, once again, excellent analysis.

Another one is what the next few decades look like for Chicagoland, which I went into above, probably in more detail than anyone cares to read. Wink

One last one I mentioned, which I won't get into too deep right now, is that I don't know that NJ is going to follow the trend in New England.. and I have several reasons for that, but the main one is that I think NJ is actually poised to become a high growth state, particularly from more diverse millennial families that are leaving the city.  The millennials -> inner city trend is beginning to reverse back to suburbanization (many millennials will refuse to believe this, of course, but people are already writing about this and the data is out there), and NJ is pretty well positioned to benefit from it.  It had lackluster growth over the past ~40 years in many areas (or even a decline) due to- first, general decline in the Northeast, then second, retirees fleeing the area (mostly to FL) and then third, millennials leaving the suburbs for city living in the early 00s.  There are plenty of signs this is already beginning to reverse if you look at Union County, Essex County, etc.

So, interestingly, I think the map of the future may be something that we've never really seen in US history, although it would bear some resemblance to some of the maps of the late 1800s (obviously the coalitions would be very different).  I suspect the West Coast through the Southwest to TX will be the Dems strongest area from about the mid-21st century on.  The GOP's strongest area will be the plains and Midwest, much like it was throughout US history, with the caveat that we have to see what happens in the Chicago area.  The biggest battlegrounds will be the South and New England, with both parties having strength in different states in each- for the Dems, portions of the Deep South and Atlanta.. for the GOP, the interior South and some coastal areas (the Carolinas particularly).  The Dems will continue to be strong in MA and essentially the entire Mid-Atlantic (from VA/MD, up through NJ/NY, which will be another Dem "core" area), where the rest of New England will be either lean R or be strong R (e.g., ME).  

The map below is pretty close to what I posted a couple years ago in this thread, which is still generally where I think things are headed.  The only updates I've made to it are: a) I'm no longer sold on IL being D due to Chicago's decline and b) after doing some more demographic research, I think more Deep South states will have to be D.




I still don't think Vermont will flip because its already very rural. I'm not 100% sold on Connecticut but think its a possibility. Rhode Island might be an easier thing but still, I'll believe when I see it. I can see New England becoming like the Sun Belt is now by maybe the end of the next Democratic administration.


https://www.270towin.com/maps/N8rnW
This is what I have. Maybe as there are two or three more reapportionments, we won't need to handicap by giving rural Eastern and Southern NE to the Rs.

Strongest D map 2035-2060
https://www.270towin.com/maps/dQ6wn
https://www.270towin.com/maps/xLEm7 (closest D win in generations)


Strongest R map 2035-2060
https://www.270towin.com/maps/3oQWn (if they can start winning convincing NPV margins)
https://www.270towin.com/maps/Dbjd3 (more likely)
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,350
United States


« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2019, 03:12:30 pm »

ESL- I like those maps; can't say I disagree with a whole lot.  Just a few things- I think even in a strong D victory, I wonder if MI will be winnable in 20 years.  I think it just depends on what happens in the Detroit area and if it continues to lose population.. if so, it's not inconceivable that it starts voting a lot more like IA or OH.  SC is another one- it'll be interesting to see what happens there because SC is one of the places where you actually see a high conservative influx (i.e., the Greenville area, which is growing at >10% and in large part is trending R).

Likewise, I do like your R win scenarios, though I have my little quibbles here and there (e.g., GA in 20 years could be one of the last states to vote R, even in a landslide situation.. I could see it staying D before even states like OR).  And I cannot conceive of a scenario like your second link where NC flips D before GA (again, this is in the future, not today).

As far as VT goes, well, you have to keep in mind that my map is LONG term.. i.e., I'm not making these predictions for 2020, or 2024, or even 2028.  I'm considering what may be happening once the baby boomer generation has almost ceased to exist and millennials are mostly in middle age, gen X is in retirement etc.

The reason why I think VT will flip (although it will still be close for a long time and probably won't be solid R in my lifetime) is simple- it has almost nothing in common with any of the demographics that are forming the Dems' core/future base.  VT is mostly older, rural, and just barely growing- we're talking like 0.1% (it is nearly last in the US).  It is the second whitest state in the country after ME (over 90%).  It is the third oldest (after ME and NH).  Honestly, if I went up to a random person and just told them to guess the state based on demographics without saying the name, you'd probably get answers like WV or ND or something.. no one would think, oh wait, that's VT.

The reason a lot of millennials will have trouble fathoming this, is because many of them grew up in the 90s and started voting (or at least "paying attention" to politics) in the 00s or Bush years.  So they associate the GOP with what were some of the strongest elements in the party at the time, which includes, e.g., Southern Evangelicals.  Given that, some have difficulty seeing how a state like VT would ever vote for the party of Southern Baptists etc., without stopping to wonder what would happen if the GOP was no longer associated with either Baptists or the South, and in fact, if it was now the Democrats who were winning most of the South.  That is a scenario that a lot of current millennials will be cognitively incapable of envisioning, even though it is actually underway- TX, GA, NC- all trending D.  Meanwhile VT (every county but 1), RI, NH, CT, ME- all trending R.  

And of course, people being born now and that will vote in 2040 will have none of the associations that millennials currently have with the GOP.  Something that is difficult to accept but is nonetheless true (and it's forgivable, people have a tendency to believe everything revolves around their own experiences, but in fact, the world does move on).  We see this already happening with the GOP, having nominated its least religious candidate since I can remember, and where the Religious Right had minimal (basically no) impact on the primary or general election, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the base.

Remember- maps change.  In 20 years, there will be states voting R that no one today is guessing.  20 years ago, KY, WV, AR, TN- all D states.  Maps that purport to predict the future but don't flip enough states are bad maps.

So the big questions are-

Will New England stay New England or will it be the new "Sun Belt" (going from being the base of its party to simply comprising its "fire wall"), "Great Lakes" (going from being reliable to one party to completely up in the air), or "Appalachia" (go from being the base of one party to being the base for the other)?

Will the Republicans be able to defend the rest of their "sunbelt firewall"(AZ,FL,TX,GA,NC), even as a couple of states in it are now just out of reach(CO,NM,NV,VA)?

Will the Rust Belt be able to hold on enough of its industries and large to remain a distinct battleground or will it simply become a rural body shop the same way the great planes or Appalachia has become? Pretty much reliant on artificially cheap labor and other costs of business?  Where the last shipping ports, banks, and factories are replaced by geriatric facilities, fulfillment centers and call centers? 

Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,350
United States


« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2019, 11:34:24 am »

There was once a COGOP troll on this website saying that Colorado was going from Lean R to Likely R thanks to the influx of new workers and special interest groups.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,350
United States


« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2019, 07:45:31 pm »

The problem with that question is that a millenial born in 1992 in Tarrant County counts as "born in Texas" where as a Baby boomer who moved to Texas in 1992 counts as moved to Texas. You need an age break down of that question.

You also have to remember that for years the people moving to NC were Republican leaning and now that situation has changed. The same happened with New Hampshire.

The whole population of "Moved to Texas" doesn't matter if it includes people that where there voting in 2004. What matters is who is moving to Texas NOW and how they voting.

Yeah that probably explains the difference. Thanks.
That actually does make sense because exit polls have regularly said that if only transplants voted in Colorado, it would still be a red state.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines